Off Topic: clear details enlarging 13-fold?

[CXC]

What is the conventional wisdom on the maximum enlargement factor which will retain reasonably sharp details? Yeah, I know opinions will vary, but I wonder if there is a generally accepted answer or range, and if not, what you folks personally think.

The issue arises for me over a 35mm color negative that looks great enlarged 6x, and I'm deciding how much larger to go. Twice as long should satisfy me. I'm using a lab which makes experimentation pricey.

Image was shot in bright sunlight with a Widelux, and is in sharp focus with lots of small details. Due to an unavoidable emergency, it was shot on Kodak's consumer 200 film, I believe it is named Gold.

TIA,

[David A. Goldfarb]

How pricey is a 5x7" test print at 13x from a critical area?

[jose angel]

I usually enlarge 35mm Velvia 100F to 1 meter wide, it is around 27x magnification. I like it scanned and (Lambda 130?) printed on photographic paper. Grain is noticeable but not disturbing thanks to that process (and to the divine hands of my lab tecnician, thought). Detail is absolutely fuzzy at 2ft., but the prints looks colourful and very nice as soon as you can see the whole image.

I´m afraid Gold 200 could have a very huge grain; as David says, you can ask for a test print on a small paper to see the results.

Obviously, high enlargements from 35mm format are not a detail issue. Content, mesagge, colour, harmony and other subjects must be the reason of the print. Don´t worry about little details. I never hear anybody mentioning sharpness looking at this kind of prints: usually, comments are related to colour saturation, composition, even about the meaning of the image (usually so funny things in this topic!).

[CXC]

No duh! as my teen-age daughter would say, if I had one. That's the correct and blindlingly obvious answer. I'll do it. Though I'm still curious how big others enlarge...

[Leonard Evens]

The degree of tolerable enlargement depends on the resolution in the source and the distance from which the final print or other image will be viewed.

It is generally agreed that anything less than 5-6 lp/mm viewed at about 10-12 inches will not appear sharp. Some poeple would put it even higher, perhaps 8-10 lp/mm. But if you get back further, then less resolution in the print would be acceptable, propotionate to the viewing distance. Thus, at 20-24 inches, you might get away with half what you would need for closer viewing.

Few 35 mm film images, not made under special circumstances, are going to do better than about 60 lp/mm, and probably not that well. That would seem to put a limit of about 10 x enlargement for 35 mm or proportionately more if you can be sure viewers won't be getting really close to the print.

[Bruce Watson]

As Leonard says, the rule of thumb is about 10x. This will vary according to the film and processing; some slow small grained films may do well at 12 x or higher, some fast films that are push processed may do worse, for example. More depends on the image, your intent for it, how viewers will be viewing it, etc.

I've seen some 35mm Tri-X enlarged to 40x60 inches that looked pretty good. I've also seen some 35mm Tri-X enlarged to 8x10 inches that looked pretty bad. Basically, the only real answer is "try it and see" because clearly YMMV.

[Richard Littlewood]

I've enlarged some 35mm half-frame negs on HP5 and TRI-X to 40 inches wide. The grain is staggering! There is though, a lovely quality to the image from this. The biggest problem is the neg popping in exposure and making 'zones' of soft grain. Image detail seems to reveal more also, - wait a mo, this isn't anything like large format, better move along now.

[Gene Crumpler]

The film stock is the limitation. I've made some 16x20 prints from 35mm Tech Pan that shows little grain and good sharpness. I used a 55mm micro-nikkor which is blazingly sharp.

Gold 200 is too grainey for much of a blow up. I used Kodak Supra in 35mm for several years and could get a low grain digital print at 8.5x11. At 11x14, the image pretty much fell apart.

This is reason that I abondoned 35mm and now work in MF and LF!

[Neal Shields]

I totally agree with Leonard.

Everything I have read and tests that I have run, lead me to the same conclusions.

The best research that I have seen on this is published in Ctien's book "Post Exposure".

Also the book "Image Clarity" deals with this in more detail than most people would want.

[Alan Davenport]

Though I'm still curious how big others enlarge...

I usually make quick inkjet prints at 2x. If I really like a picture I go to 16x20, that's a 4x enlargment. Maximum I will go to is 8x for a 30x40 print.

Obviously not using 35mm here, I've become a believer in the axiom, "There's no substitute for square inches."